Bringing Cross-Cultural Composition into the Online FY Writing CourseFocus on Language and Identity

Mariya Tseptsura / University of New Mexico

1. Introduction

2. Institutional Context

3. Theoretical Background

4. Course Design

5. Student Reactions

6. Discussion and Implications

7. References

8. Appendixes

<

>

1. IntroductionAs higher education institutions across the nation are increasing their online learning options, including online writing courses, their campuses are growing more diverse with rising numbers of international and resident second language students (L2 students, or students whose first language is not English). While language diversity presents unique challenges to all first year composition (FYC) courses, online FYC programs might struggle with finding appropriate ways to address it in particular because, as some research suggests, underrepresented and academically underprepared students (including English language learners) are most likely to fail in online courses (e.g., Harrington, 2010; Jaggars & Bailey, 2013; Xu & Jaggars, 2013). However, there has been little research that could guide educators in best practices to accommodate for linguistic diversity in online writing courses. ​The experimental cross-cultural online English composition course described in this article represents one attempt at responding to these challenges at a large R1 Hispanic-serving Southwestern university. The university enrolls substantial numbers of L2 students, international as well as resident, and the university’s Core Writing program promotes the values of linguistic diversity and inclusivity, with two of the FYC outcomes focusing on linguistic diversity specifically. The cross-cultural curriculum was designed to better serve L2 students while at the same time helping L1 writers achieve the course outcomes focused on linguistic diversity. Miller-Cochran (2015) outlined strategies that provide inclusivity and access to all online students. Cross-cultural composition, however, takes a more proactive approach to the linguistic diversity of its students and uses it as a resource to create a welcoming atmosphere for L2 students and promote cross-cultural learning and understanding for L2 and L1 students alike.

2. Institutional ContextThe experimental curriculum was designed and implemented at the University of New Mexico, the state flagship university with close to 30,000 students on its main and branch campuses. As most of the students are residents of the state, the student demographics tend to follow the outline of the general state demographics where 48.5% of the population identify as Hispanic or Latino and 35.7% of residents speak language other than English at home, as stated by the U.S. Census Bureau. According to the UNM 2016 Official Enrollment Report, 43% of students self-identify as Hispanic, 5% as American Indian (labels are taken from the university report), and 35% as White non-Hispanic. While the university does not track students’ linguistic backgrounds, it is reasonable to assume the number of students speaking a language other than English at home is similar to the state average. Finally, the university also enrolls over 1,000 international students, with almost a half pursuing an undergraduate degree. International students, like resident bilingual or ESL students, are often placed in regular English Composition courses where instructors might not even be aware of their presence or background. The Core Writing program at UNM offers one or two sections of first-year composition for international students each semester, but no such option is available for online FYC courses.

The eComp (short for Electronic Composition) program at UNM was founded in 2013 in response to the university’s efforts to expand its online course options and following the hire of new faculty members specializing in online writing instruction (Bourelle & Bourelle, 2015). From only two pilot sections in Spring 2013, the program has grown its offerings to 18 sections of freshman and sophomore English writing courses and will likely continue expanding. The eComp now offers English 110 and English 120, a two-part freshman composition course, English 219 (Technical and Professional Writing), and English 220 (a higher-level Expository Writing course). All eComp courses follow the same principles as traditional face-to-face courses: they employ genre-based pedagogy where students work in a variety of academic and professional genres and create a final portfolio at the end of the course.

In eComp classes, however, students also create multimodal projects, including videos, audio podcasts, websites and blogs, etc.; following Takayoshi and Selfe’s (2007) warning that traditional text-based essays might not prepare students for the kinds of writing they would have to do outside of college classes, the program consciously sought ways to incorporate new mediums into the curriculum while also making them meaningful within the genre pedagogy framework. eComp instructors are encouraged to model multimodal approach to their students by composing multimodal course documents such as video instructions or feedback. (The majority of instructors teaching in eComp are graduate students; they have to take a dedicated teaching practicum course in order to be able to teach online, and multimodality is an important aspect of the practicum.) For the final project in the course, students compose a portfolio website that includes revised projects and reflections on students’ own learning in the class. In their reflections, students discuss their composing process and their learning progress by referencing their work and the student learning outcomes; students are encouraged to reflect on each outcome and provide ample evidence of their progress.

All eComp courses follow the student learning outcomes (SLOs) designed by the Core Writing program. There are eight outcomes for English 110 courses and ten for English 120, which has two additional research outcomes. The SLOs focus on developing students’ genre awareness and argumentative strategies, their grammar and other writing conventions, as well as research and reflection skills (for full list of the SLOs, see Appendix A). Moreover, two SLOs focus on language diversity more specifically, which reflects the Core Writing program’s efforts to accommodate the university’s diverse student population. These two outcomes state that by the end of the course, students should be able to:​

B. Describe the social nature of composing, particularly the role of discourse communities at the local, national, and international level;

D. Improve their fluency in the dialect of Standardized Written American English at the level of the sentence, paragraph, and document.

The goal behind introducing these two outcomes was “to help students recognize the value of difference in writing and communication, understanding that different discourse communities—whether academic or cultural—have different forms and styles of communication” (Bourelle & Bourelle, 2015). However, an assessment study conducted by the eComp directors (Bourelle & Bourelle, 2015) discovered that these two outcomes showed consistently lower student performance compared to the other outcomes and to face-to-face courses.This experimental course was designed to address this gap in student performance on the two SLOs and at the same time to provide support to second language students. The concepts introduced in the course proved beneficial to raising students’ awareness to the “social nature of composing” and the values and politics of different languages and dialects of English, but these concepts also helped create a more welcoming environment to second language writers, validating their experiences with language learning and use and letting them engage critically with these experiences and their multiple literacies in the online classroom.

3. Theoretical BackgroundThe cross-cultural model and its different incarnations have been discussed in a number of studies. Matsuda and Silva’s 1999 piece is perhaps the most well-known example, but Miller-Cochran (2012), Canagarajah (2002), Jordan (2012), and Lee and Jenks (2916) also addressed similar curriculum designs.

Matsuda and Silva (1999) described a course that responded to the challenge of placing international L2 students: rather than isolating them into an ESL section or immersing them into a traditional L1 Composition class, Matsuda and Silva’s curriculum allowed them to have both L1 and L2 students in the same class, creating a “contact zone” (in Mary Louise Pratt’s term) where L1 and L2 students alike focused on cultural and linguistic differences, exploring them based on their own and their classmates’ experiences. The authors demonstrated the learning moments for both domestic and international students and stated that both groups were able to “increase their cross-cultural awareness” while the course provided an atmosphere where ESL students could feel more “comfortable” than in mainstream L1 sections (Matsuda & Silva, 1999, p. 27). Students engaged in group work and various field research activities such as observations, and the authors stressed the importance of instructor’s role in creating a welcoming atmosphere and supporting L2 students. As these aspects of the course seem to be dependent on in-person interaction, it is unclear how much of the course design (and its benefits) can be transferred into the online environment. Furthermore, Matsuda and Silva (1999) also outlined two main difficulties associated with the cross-cultural course design: the staffing challenge (instructors need to be well-versed in both L1 and L2 composition) and enrollment issues (a placement procedure needs to ensure an equal number of L1 and L2 students).

Over a decade after Matsuda and Silva’s piece (1999), Susan Miller-Cochran (2012) gave an account of her own cross-cultural composition course taught at a large community college. Miller-Cochran shifted the focus of her course to focus more on research-based academic writing, but followed the same goal of creating a curriculum that “puts all students in a position of authority in the writing classroom” (p. 22). Students used their own experiences with language and literacy as the topics for their research; students also read and reflected on their classmates’ experiences, learning from their differences and similarities.

Furthermore, Miller-Cochran (2012) points out the importance of institutional and programmatic context: the program’s or an individual teacher’s stance on language difference might go against the underlying assumptions of a cross-cultural course design if the program, in Severino’s terms, espouses assimilationist rather than accommodationist views. Canagarajah (2002) raises similar questions in his 2002 article discussing different pedagogical approaches to working with multilingual students who participate in diverse discourse communities. What Canagarajah ultimately argues for is that instructors should “get students to engage with the academy, not necessarily be inducted into it” (p. 41) by being able to negotiate between their own discourses and dialects and those of the academia.There is some evidence that online spaces might become the venue that provides the space for this negotiation.

In addition, a more recent study (Lee & Jenks, 2016) utilized similar cirricular design to foster a “translingual disposition” in a global partnership classroom where students from a US-based composition course engaged in an online collaboration with students enrolled in a similar course in Hong Kong. While this study stemmed from a different ideological position compared to the cross-cultural approach (see Horner et al, 2011 and Matsuda, 2014 for an overview of the debate over the translingual approach), the core goals of promoting openness to language difference strongly resonate with the programmatic goals at UNM and my own project. In this course, both L1 and L2 students wrote a critical literacy narrative where they reflected on their experience with a “second language,” broadly defined as any language variation. The authors (Lee & Jenks, 2016) stated that many of their L1 students “appeared to be vexed, disoriented, or generally reluctant when asked to write about their experiences in a ‘second language’” (p. 328). However, they also described the positive learning experiences of both student groups and the potential of their course design to change students’ attitudes towards the value of World Englishes.

In a more practice-oriented sense, writing instructors working with L2 students may be facing the dilemma or using – or not allowing to use – students’ L1 in their classes. The research on using students’ first language in an English class tends to point to some benefits of allowing it but also calls for a nuanced understanding of the processes involved in it. Chamcharatsri (2017) demonstrated that allowing L2 students use their L1 in peer feedback (both in writing and orally) leads to better feedback while also making them feel more confident in their peer response. Other studies (e.g., DiCamilla & Antón, 2012) showed that using L1 in the class is most beneficial to beginner-level students compared to more advanced L2 learners. Van Weijen et al’s study (2009) found that all L2 students were using their L1 while writing in L2 to some extent, but their study points to possible negative correlation between the quality of students’ L2 texts and using L1 during composing. Yet other researchers further complicated the debate by pointing out that “Language choices are not merely a matter of efficiency of communication, task completion, or class management (though often they are). They are also about working out who one is when using those languages” (Levine, 2013, p. 429). Overall, it is reasonable to conclude that the option to use L1 if needed can benefit L2 writers; as Miller-Cochran (2015) recommended, instructors should at least consider creating spaces where students can use their L1.

Furthermore, some research suggests that online venues in general and online writing courses in particular may provide new opportunities for L2 writers to build their writer and language learner identities. DePew and Miller-Cochran’s study (2009) of L2 writers’ use of social networks demonstrated students’ engagement with sophisticated rhetorical considerations in constructing their identity online, something that instructors can mobilize for developing students’ academic writing. Canagarajah (1997) showed how online communication can also provide a “safe house” for L2 writers who might be traditionally marginalized or who might choose to remain silent for fear of being criticized in traditional face-to-face classrooms. In online settings, students might feel more free to battle stereotypes about themselves (Warschauer, 1999) and to exercise the rhetorical traditions of their home cultures, expressing them in English (Bloch, 2004). Kynard’s study (2007) also showed how African American students were able to re-envision their own identity and resist the stereotypes and the pull of Standardized American English. All of these studies hold promise that online courses might be particularly suitable for cross-cultural composition with its focus on linguistic and cultural diversity.

Finally, cross-cultural composition might be relevant for online courses as they tend to “erase” diversity (Sujo de Montes, Oran, & Willis, 2002) or have a dehumanizing effect (Hewett, 2015). The lack of in-person interaction might affect teachers’ perception of their students. For example, in Matsuda, Saenkhum, and Accardi’s study (2013) of writing instructors’ perceptions of the presence and needs of L2 writers, the majority of instructors indicated that they identify L2 writers in their face-to-face courses either through self-disclosure or by certain features of their spoken language. The researchers even noted that “One instructor indicated that multilingual students were not identified because he or she taught all courses online” (p. 75). Thus, instructors might not realize how diverse their classes really are, and they might also be compelled to design their courses for a “universal user” rather than “a universe of users” (Bowie, 2009) with varying backgrounds and experiences. Cross-cultural composition can help bring student’s backgrounds to the forefront, making it easier for instructors to support L2 writers in their classes and create a welcoming atmosphere open to the cultural and linguistic diversity that is becoming more and more common on campuses around the nation.

4. Course DesignThe cross-cultural section I designed was an English 120 course, which is a second-semester part of the first year Composition course that emphasized research-based academic writing. The main goal of the course was two-fold: first, to provide a welcoming and engaging atmosphere in the class for L2 writers, and second, to promote student learning in the two “language diversity” SLOs or, in other words, to raise their appreciation and awareness of other languages, dialects, and cultures. The primary means of accomplishing this two-fold goal was through course assignments and discussions that focused on a range of language-related issues.

Because English 120 is a research-based course, the curriculum was built on a combination of students’ personal experiences and research. The course included three major projects, each of them in a different genre and all but one multimodal in nature. Building up to these major assignments, students completed a number of readings and a few smaller-scale assignments, either in a specific genre or as discussion board posts. All three projects were centered around a language-related topic, but within different parameters.

The first project was a language identity manifesto (for full assignment prompts, see Appendix B): students were prompted to reflect on their own and their community’s language use and what it meant for them as individuals and members of these communities. The assignment fell within a memoir genre, but it had a research requirement (at least two secondary scholarly sources) that was intended to push students to see how their own personal experiences fit within the larger sociocultural and political environment. The manifesto thus relied on a combination of students’ personal experiences and larger societal trends while also introducing students to using research in their writing. The manifesto was the only assignment that did not include a multimodal component; nonetheless, students were encouraged to add visual elements to their paper.

The second assignment was a rhetorical analysis focused, again, on language use: students had to choose a text, audio, or video to analyze that used multiple language or variations of one language. Students were given some examples of such texts, from Anzaldua’s “How to Tame a Wild Tongue” piece to movies and comedy sketches (e.g., a 2006 film Paris, Je T’aime or then-President Obama’s speech at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner which featured the comedian Keegan-Michael Key as his “anger translator” in vernacular American English). Students analyzed the role that multiple languages or dialects played in the rhetorical situation and in conveying the message of their chosen text. As with the first assignment, students were required to use secondary scholarly sources in their analysis that helped them see the issues they identified in their analysis in the larger sociocultural context. The analysis was built in two parts: first, students wrote a text-based essay and second, they created a video presentation of their analysis.For the last assignment in the course, students were invited to write an argument on a language-related issue of their choice (topics ranged from bilingual education to the marginalization of certain American English dialects). Students had a choice to create their argument in the form of a blog post, a video, or an audio podcast. Students were required to do extensive research on their topics and include multiple secondary sources in their arguments.

For all three assignments, students composed multiple drafts and completed a number of readings that focused on issues of language use, diversity, and inclusivity. Miller-Cochran (2012) pointed out the lack of teaching resources for cross-cultural curriculum, and I found that to be true as well. I was unable to use the textbook Miller-Cochran (2012) recommended because our program’s policy required all FYC courses use the same textbook. However, I was able to provide some supplemental readings (for a full list of published sources, see Appendix C) that proved beneficial to both L1 and L2 students alike; the readings included both popular and scholarly articles and illustrated a number of perspectives.

Additionally, the course also provided L2 students with opportunities to use their L1 and encouraged L1 students to use their knowledge of a foreign language or a dialect of English. Students were encouraged to use their L1 in the course discussion posts and major written assignments as well as in communicating with the course instructor (I speak Russian as my native language, and I am fluent in English and French) and the writing tutor from the university’s writing center who is fluent in Spanish and English. Initially, the course did not include mandatory one-on-one conferences with either the instructor or the tutor, but I changed that policy after receiving student feedback in the first semester: after that, the course schedule included three mandatory individual conferences via online video chat or face-to-face, depending on the student’s location and availability. We used these conferences to discuss students’ drafts for the three main projects and other class-related concerns. Moreover, these conferences allowed me to establish a more personal relationship with students – something that can be challenging to achieve in an online class.

To get a better sense of who my students were, at the beginning of each course I asked them to fill out a short questionnaire detailing their educational and linguistic backgrounds (see Appendix D for the questionnaire); in addition, students created an introduction post on the course discussion board where they introduced themselves in English and another language. Students who were not fluent in another language were still able to rely on their rudimental knowledge of another language to create a short introductory paragraph. The introduction discussion was designed to let students get a better sense of who their classmates were (something that, again, can be challenging in an online environment) and open up the theme of the class.

Finally, I sought to make the course more accessible to students from different language backgrounds and learning styles by using various multimodal instructional tools. Miller-Cochran (2015) stresses that when working with multilingual writers, “providing instruction in multiple modalities is all the more important” (p. 298); in addition, some researchers claim that providing feedback in multiple modalities such as video and text can improve student involvement and ensure better quality of both feedback and student revision (e.g., Ducate & Arnold, 2012; Elola and Oskoz, 2016). I delivered instructions and assignments via written text and video, and I provided my feedback through a combination of written comments and screencast video feedback. I tried to tailor my feedback to each student’s needs as well through seeking student comments on the feedback via course surveys and talking to students directly. As I have background in TESOL and second language writing, I relied on my knowledge and experience to address any L2-related concerns students could have. In addition, using videos and other multimodal elements in my communication with students allowed me more flexibility in constructing my teacher identity (DePew, 2008); I also created my own language manifesto and shared it with the students as one of the sample papers.

5. Student ReactionsI taught two sections of the cross-cultural English 120 in the Fall 2015 and Spring 2016 semesters. The course was advertised to UNM students enrolled in English 110, but I encountered some obstacles as well. Some unique challenges in filling the class were that (1) UNM does not track students’ language backgrounds except for international students, and (2) the eComp program does not offer a designated ESL section of either English 110 or 120. As a result, it was not possible to make my section cross-listed as an ESL Composition course (similar to how Matsuda’s and Miller-Cochran’s courses were designated), but I was able to advertise the section as tailored to the needs of students who speak two or more languages. The registration for the course was by instructor permission only, and I made sure that all students were aware of the special curriculum of the course, but I was not able to control how many students from each demographic group would register for the class. Nonetheless, sections of the course had an almost equal number of monolingual students and students who spoke two or more languages. The majority of multilingual students were born in the US (only 4 students were foreign-born), and the most common language besides English was Spanish, while other languages included Keres, Zuni, Vietnamese, Korean, Tagalog, Cambodian, Hungarian, Russian, and Portuguese.

I obtained IRB approval for the study and was able to recruit 33 students to participate in it via a survey; seven of those students also agreed to an interview. The survey asked students about their language and education background and elicited some general feedback on how the students responded to the course design. In the interviews (conducted after each semester was over), I was able to go more in-depth regarding the students’ experience with the class. Finally, I also obtained students’ permission to collect all of the writing created as part of the course, including their written assignments, online discussion posts and comments, class polls answers, etc. All of the collected materials (survey and polls responses, interview transcripts, and writing samples) were analyzed inductively and coded for common themes. In my discussion of the student responses, I rely on the most pertinent examples coming from L1 and L2 students alike.

5.1 Student Reactions to the Theme of the Course Susan Miller-Cochran (2012) mentioned that both L1 and L2 students might be hesitant to take a course with “so many students that they classify as Other” (p. 25); similarly, Lee and Jenks (2016) described the reluctance of L1 students to talk about their experiences with language variation. In the case of the curriculum I designed, my main concern was that L1 (and possibly L2) students might feel little enthusiasm towards the theme of the course; however, this was rarely the case with either student group. A few L1 students expressed dissatisfaction with some of the readings, e.g., two L1 students voiced their frustration towards Gloria Anzaldua’s “How To Tame a Wild Tongue” because they were unable to understand Spanish. However, the majority of L1 and L2 students showed understanding of Anzaldua’s article and similar pieces: ​

​I thought that the merging of the two languages helped bring out her character and helped emphasize her point about language. I personally know many people who talk similar to how she did and I think that it's perfectly fine to speak like that. It does sometimes give people a perception on what kind of person she is however. I could see some people may be racist towards her for dialect she uses and I think it's wrong. (Martin, an L1 student with beginner Spanish proficiency, in an online discussion board post)

Moreover, the L1 students who initially disliked some of the readings were able to change their perspective later as they worked on creating their own language manifestos and had to use similar strategies to demonstrate their unique language practices.

Several L1 students at first showed varying degrees of confusion towards the first assignment, the language manifesto. One L1 student wrote to me in an email message that she was struggling with the prompt: “ I don't really have a linguistic identity so I don't have any idea what I would write about. As opposed to the "How to Tame a Wild Tongue" paper where her multilingualism is an important part of her identity I am unfortunately monolingual.” After I responded that anybody speaking any one language is bound to have a linguistic identity and that claiming not to have one is akin to saying “I don’t have an ethnicity because I am White,” she responded with the following realization: “I actually WAS saying essentially, ‘If you're white you don't have ethnicity.’ I think my trouble was in the absence of an identifiable linguistic identity, I don't know my linguistic identity” (Alicia, email exchange). In the end, the student focused her manifesto on both her Californian dialect and her desire to acquire a bilingual identity in her efforts to learn Spanish as well as her discomfort with the language stemming from a perceived lack of proficiency.

Other L1 students focused on the dialects of their specific communities, from the US Army language or restaurant industry to Ebonics and the regional and social class variations of American English. Focusing on language often uncovered other layers of their identity as well; for example, in our post-semester interview, Darrell, an ex-military African American student noted that “Before I've got into class... I never researched Ebonics at all… and then the assignment that made me go research Ebonics for like a few hours, and I found out so much about my history, like of my race and where I come from; stuff like that was very valuable.”

However, the course’s focus on language use resonated the most with the domestic bilingual students. Overwhelmingly, these students confessed having similar experiences, and many focused on the issues of language use and discrimination in their manifestos. For example, Elisa, a bilingual student who grew up in a largely immigrant community in New Mexico, described her struggle with coming to terms with her language identity:​

When television and the internet were introduced more into our home in my preteen years, my perspective of my culture and identity shifted. I started realizing I was different. Not like “unique different”, different in an unaccepted way. The people that spoke like me were portrayed in the media as cartel leaders, thugs, prisoners, and dangerous. Most of all, they portrayed us as uneducated. At the age of 13 I decided I no longer wanted to identify with this dialect or associate myself with this culture altogether. I worked really hard to have an accent like the newscasters on TV and tried my best to not sound like a “Northern New Mexican."

Moreover, Elisa also noted that reading other students’ drafts and online discussions was encouraging for her: “Growing up in a bilingual home I never knew other people were concerned or even confused at times about their identity like I was. It's been very encouraging and interesting to see everyone’s perspective on this very personal matter” (Elisa, from online discussion of a sample student paper). Keeping the focus on their personal experiences helped create a stronger community that kept students engaged. Elisa, who took our class while staying abroad, confessed that she was afraid to take all of her courses online because she was “the kind of person that has to go to class to stay productive” (Elisa, post-semester interview). Nonetheless, she was able to do extremely well in the class and pointed out that being able to use Spanish “brought up a lot of memories” and made the class “really fun” (Elisa, post-semester interview). However, while she mentioned that it was beneficial to have access to her classmates’ work, she also admitted feeling nervous because her own work was accessible to all of her classmates: “I did worry sometimes with peer review about other people's opinions … I was just wondering how other people would react to maybe some of my comments … I was worried that maybe I'm a bit too liberal sometimes” (Elisa, from post-semester interview).

Using Students’ L1and Individual CommunicationBeing able to talk about their writing process in their native language proved to be especially beneficial for the international students in the class. Michael, a student from Russia, chose to have all three individual conferences with me, a fellow Russian speaker, while another international student from South America chose to speak with the tutor exclusively in Spanish. Our individual conferences with Michael were an hour long each, and they proved even more beneficial for him as it was his first online class ever: initially, he wanted to enroll in a face-to-face ESL section of freshman composition, but because it was already full, he picked our course as the next best option. In his post-semester interview, he confessed that he missed the in-class interaction with instructor and that our one-on-one conversations in Russian were essential to his success in the class: “Yes, that's pretty obvious, that's the only reason I didn’t die. Seriously. Because otherwise, I wouldn't have been able to write it at all.”

Due to obvious limitations, we were not able to anticipate all of our students’ language backgrounds and provide adequate resources for conversing in students’ first languages; for instance, one international student from South Korea regretted not being able to speak her first language when discussing her writing. However, Helena, a student from Hungary who had spent 2 years in the US prior to taking our course, mentioned that she did not need as much language support in her L1 and felt it was easier to write in English than in her native tongue. She further explained that even speaking was easier in English in certain situations: “when we're talking about something Hungarian or Hungary-related or a town over there, it's easier to speak in Hungarian about it. But… when we're speaking um or talking about um Albuquerque or New Mexico-related, it's easier in English” (Helena, post-semester interview). Nonetheless, Helena still chose to have our individual conferences in person and pointed out that these meetings were helpful to her in her writing process.

In addition, individual communication proved to be extremely beneficial to several L1 students who were in danger of failing the class. One student, Alicia, confessed that my persistence in trying to get her back on track on the first assignment helped her overcome her anxieties about English courses: “I’ve dropped out of it [English 120] like 5 different times.. um.. because I just.. like writing was just too stressful for me.. so I've never been able to get my bachelor's degree. I've dropped out of it at a community college, I've dropped out of it at universities, I've spent thousands of dollars taking English classes that I couldn't complete” (Alicia, post-semester interview).​When asked if they would like to be able to use their other language in the class in some way, the majority of resident bilingual students replied that they would like to see such opportunity; for example, one student responded, “In any form, I like incorporating my Native American language which is Zuni” (Diana, initial survey). However, if students indicated they were not fully proficient in the language, they were less likely to be willing to use it. Moreover, few students used the invitation to write in their other language beyond the first assignment even if some of them preferred to use L1 for individual conferences. Some of that reluctance towards code-switching might be explained by the pervasive monolingual bias and the internalized belief that mixing two languages is a sign of “lack of mastery of either language” (Shin, 2005). Some bilingual students, like Elisa’s story demonstrates, have been struggling with negative stereotypes of their language, so it is hardly surprising that they would prefer to keep their writing within the confines of the Standardized American English.

6. Discussion and ImplicationsOverall, the main two-fold objective of the course was achieved: on the one hand, L1 students were able to engage with the course materials and gain a deeper understanding and appreciation of different languages and dialects; on the other hand, the course created a welcoming and engaging atmosphere for L2 students, allowing them to use their language skills and experiences as a resource.

L1 students showed some initial resistance towards some of the course topics and readings, but they nonetheless demonstrated an appreciation for the linguistic diversity not only in our course but also in the American society at large. The assignments pushed them to explore their own language use in ways that helped them to explore the diversity of dialects within “American English.” Students were able to gain a deeper understanding of the value of using different languages and the effects such usage might have. Student performance on the “language diversity” course outcomes was strengthened, as was evident in students’ reflections: some L1 students’ attitudes towards language use and diversity became more accepting of difference, similar to how in Matsuda and Silva (1999) study, L1 students were able to gain valuable insights into cross-cultural communication and in Lee and Jenks’s (2016) course, L1 students were able to develop “a disposition toward linguistic openness” (p. 328).

At the same time, L2 students were able to use their bilingual background as a resource rather than an deficiency, exploring ways their experiences with languages have been reflected – or in some cases misrepresented - in other people’s writing on the topics. Some resident bilingual students were truly enthusiastic about being able to use their other language in class and talk about their unique language usage in their writing. Many students also discussed issues of past and present language discrimination, reflecting on the ways their own language use allowed them (or did not allow) to fit in with the mainstream American culture and the academic culture as well. Moreover, students engaged with academic genres and research-based writing as they were talking about these very personal issues.

Furthermore, L2 students benefitted from being able to use their L1 in one-on-one interactions with the embedded tutor or the instructor, albeit in different ways. Perhaps not surprisingly, international students seemed to need it as a support more than resident L2 students who might be equally if not more comfortable with using English in the school setting. However, while it was undoubtedly beneficial for L2 students to have this form of language support, it is not possible to anticipate all of the students’ needs: there were a few students who were not able to use their L1 when they wanted to because we did not have a tutor fluent in their L1. Furthermore, while individual conferences in their L1 can be extremely helpful to L2 students, L1 students can benefit from them as well: as Alicia’s example showed, individual contact can help struggling students succeed in the class.The issues of staffing, as Matsuda and Silva (1999) point out, create one constraint to implementing cross-cultural courses in general and providing wider support to L2 students more specifically. However, Miller-Cochran (2012) argues that staffing issues should not deter FYC programs from introducing cross-cultural curriculum: “teaching the curriculum itself helps faculty develop their own awareness of the similarities and differences across cultural contexts for writing. In other words, teaching the curriculum could be part of a faculty development plan” (pp. 25-26). To make use of some of the benefits cross-cultural courses offer, FYC programs can redesign their curriculum to allow instructors to build on the language skills and knowledge of their students.

My project differed from Matsuda and Silva’s and Miller-Cochran’s in its enrollment tactics: for the first section in the Fall 2015, recruitment efforts were minimal, and most students enrolled in the class found out about its cross-cultural focus after being registered. Still, half of the students in the class were fluent in two or more languages, and both L2 and L1 students were able to benefit from the curriculum. As campuses around the nation are becoming more and more diverse, placement issues - one of the biggest challenges of cross-cultural composition - might become obsolete: all composition classrooms are becoming “cross-cultural” in terms of the diversity of student’s language backgrounds. It is perhaps even more relevant for online education, which tends to attract a more diverse student population and that continues to grow even when general student enrollment drops (Lederman, 2018).

Overall, the cross-cultural composition holds great potential for online FYC courses specifically because it allows students to engage their multiple literacies and experiences as make their online class less dehumanizing. L2 and L1 students alike are pushed towards recognizing the value that each language and dialect brings, and the curriculum allows students to negotiate their language use and language identity. The curriculum described in this article is one possible way of building a cross-cultural course that responded to specific student demographics and programmatic goals. Depending on the language diversity present on their campus, each institution can adopt elements of cross-cultural composition that would suit their specific situation. Implementing cross-cultural elements can also be used as an opportunity for faculty development in order to better prepare instructors for the growing diversity of our educational landscape.

Jaggars, Shanna Smith, & Bailey, Thomas. (2010). “Effectiveness of fully online courses for college students: Response to a department of education meta-analysis.” Community College Research Center.

Jordan, Jay. (2012). Redesigning composition for multilingual realities (CCCC studies in writing & rhetoric; Studies in writing & rhetoric). Urbana, Ill.: Conference on College Composition and Communication of the National Council of Teachers of English.